← All Phrases

“Section 133(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 133Section 133(6)6,687 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 133(6) is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 133(6)

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Judgments citing Section 133(6)

DCIT CC -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

found. Identical verification was also carried out by the GST department with respect to this party resulting same fact. The notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act through ITB portal and physical services remained unresponsive. Accordingly, the AO purposed to disallow the manpower expenses in respect impugned party ... given addresses during enquiries conducted by the Income Tax Department as well as the GST Department, and that the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act remained un-responded. It is also noted that the assessee, during the relevant year, had availed manpower supply services from 28 differen

DCIT, CC-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

found. Identical verification was also carried out by the GST department with respect to this party resulting same fact. The notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act through ITB portal and physical services remained unresponsive. Accordingly, the AO purposed to disallow the manpower expenses in respect impugned party ... given addresses during enquiries conducted by the Income Tax Department as well as the GST Department, and that the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act remained un-responded. It is also noted that the assessee, during the relevant year, had availed manpower supply services from 28 differen

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

found. Identical verification was also carried out by the GST department with respect to this party resulting same fact. The notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act through ITB portal and physical services remained unresponsive. Accordingly, the AO purposed to disallow the manpower expenses in respect impugned party ... given addresses during enquiries conducted by the Income Tax Department as well as the GST Department, and that the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act remained un-responded. It is also noted that the assessee, during the relevant year, had availed manpower supply services from 28 differen

Sanjitha Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1173/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2062/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT

enabled software development services, which is the same line of activity as the assessee. The company’s own reply to notice under section 133(6) confirms that it is involved in software-related services and development work. The ld. AR pointed out that software service income constitutes ... total revenue. This is supported by the company’s own response to the notice . ITA No.1720 & 2062/Bang/2017 Page 19 of 28 under section 133(6) of the Act, which confirms that it is engaged in software-related development services. 18.10 We also note that the export earnings constitute

Ntt Data Global Delivery Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1720/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT

enabled software development services, which is the same line of activity as the assessee. The company’s own reply to notice under section 133(6) confirms that it is involved in software-related services and development work. The ld. AR pointed out that software service income constitutes ... total revenue. This is supported by the company’s own response to the notice . ITA No.1720 & 2062/Bang/2017 Page 19 of 28 under section 133(6) of the Act, which confirms that it is engaged in software-related development services. 18.10 We also note that the export earnings constitute

Comet Enterprise, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 16(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5090/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2022-23

For Respondent: Ms. Ridhisha Jain (Virtually appear)
Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69

source of Rs.12,35,00,000/- invested. It is seen that despite is seen that despite multiple notices under sections 133(6), 142(1) and opportunities to multiple notices under sections 133(6), 142(1) and opportunities to multiple notices under sections 133(6), 142(1) and opportunities to explain

Chirag Chandrakant Mehta, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4397/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Chirag Chandrakant Mehta Vs Principal Commissioner Of C/O Ca Himanshu Gandhi Income Tax-27, Mumbai 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan: (Aabpm5091L) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

which assessee furnished his reply on 14.07.2022 and 09.02.2022, which were considered by the ld. AO. 2.3. Also, notices under section 133(6) were issued to four parties from whom replies were received and ld. AO noted in this regard that they were found to be in order. Re-assessment

Ramchandra Kadava Sharma, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

ITA 4360/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Mr. Jay Bhansali, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 69C

asked to furnish Ledger A/c, Bank Statement for payment made to the aforesaid parties, delivery challans, Inward Register / Stock Register also notice under section 133(6) were issued to the seller parties, but the same were returned back un-served by the postal authorities. The assessee before the AO failed ... further submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had furnished necessary evidences which are primarily required, however as the notices under section 133(6) could not be responded by the alleged bogus parties, which is beyond the control of assessee, the assessee should not be penalized for the same

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Benko Traders Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/RAN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.436/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Cc, Jamshedpur…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Benko Traders Pvt. Ltd....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, Block D, White House, Park Stree, Wb – 700016. [Pan: Aabcb1888R] Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 07, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna For The Assessment Year 2015–16 Dated 25.09.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Under Section 139 Of The Act Declaring A Total Income As Nil. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1). Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Was Completed On 28.11.2017 Determining The Total Income At ₹9,88,28,406. Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Relating To Alleged Use Of Stock Exchange Platform (Bse/Nse) For Generating Fictitious Long-Term/Short-Term Capital Gains Through Certain Scripts & Alleged Accommodation Entries, The Assessing Officer Recorded Reasons Under Section 147 Of The Act. A Notice Under Section 148 Was Issued The Assessee Filed Its Return Declaring The Same Income

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

entities namely, M/s. Bangbhumi Highrise Pvt Ltd and M/s. TallandDatasoft Pvt Ltd, and has not made third party inquiry of the transaction under section 133(6) of the IT Act. Further, it is also noticed that the AO has not made inquiries with the bank to get the cash trail ... claim. However, despite having access to PAN, CIN, and bank details of both the companies, the AO did not issue any notice under section 133(6), nor conducted any third-party enquiry to verify the genuineness of the loan transactions. No independent investigation was made and no contrary material

Mr Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Wrd-1(4), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2160/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2160/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Ibrahim Bagwan, Jalgaon Prop. Of Javed Vegetable Company (Jvc), Barbhai Galli, Bodwad-425310, Dist-Jalgaon Maharashtra Pan-Attpb3077C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "एस एम सी" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2229/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-13(1), Kolkata……….……………… …………….……….……Appellant Vs. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Ltd..…….………….......……...…..…..Respondent Raja Road, P.O. Sukchar, Barrackpur-Ii, 24 Parganas, W.B-700115.. [Pan: Aabcc2200Q] Appearances By: Shri Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 25 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits. Century Aluminium Mfg Company Ltd

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194ASection 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.…..…………………….……….….……….……Appellant 15, Dr. U N Brahmachari Street, Kol – 700017.. [Pan: Aabcb1093Q] Vs. Dcit, Circle -7(1), Kolkata ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Appearances By: Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For Ay 2014-2015 Declaring An Income Of Rs.88,37,270/- & Was Assessed To An Income Of Rs.4,55,31,490/-. The Assessing Officer Passed Assessment Order In The Case Of The Assessee By Making The Following Additions /Disallowances:

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Kumarasamy Ramalingam, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 3240/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3240/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 & S.A. No. 120Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 3240/Chny/2025] Kumarasamy Ramalingam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 133, Mullai Nagar, Old Bus Stand Ward 2(1), Road, Perundurai, Erode 638 052. Erode. [Pan: Ajnpr1672H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Bhupendran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)

assessee also furnished the details towards loans advanced to various persons. In order to verify the creditors, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to those loan creditors and the confirmation reply furnished by the creditors are extracted in para 6 of the assessment order

Namah Shivaya Marketing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4931/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Yogendra Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132ASection 133(6)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3515/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Purushuttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 3514/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3513/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3512/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Purushttam Lal Soni, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, Delhi

ITA 3511/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 65B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI